BenchLeader
Menu
Best LLMsChoose a modelLeaderboardsModelsBenchmarksProvidersReleases12

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Muse Wonder Full

Full profiles: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (DeepSeek) and Muse Wonder Full (Meta): every benchmark, price and rank.

Updated · Data from 7 sources

As of 24 Oct 2026, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) and Muse Wonder Full (max) are neck and neck on quality (64.0 vs 70.7, inside the ±9.5 margin of error) and close on price, so pick on the category that matters to you. Muse Wonder Full leads in every category we measure both in.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 benchmarks max DeepSeek Muse Wonder Full benchmarks max MetaOpen in the comparison tool

Which to pick for…

The pick's numbers come first. Category scores on the BenchLeader scale (50 is the average model, 15 points one standard deviation). High confidence means a lead of half a standard deviation or more; under one point is called either.

Use casePickWhyConfidence
CodingMuse Wonder Full72 vs 70 category score; Arena WebDev 1726 vs 1664Medium
ReasoningMuse Wonder Full95 vs 71 category score; CritPt 32.9% vs 24.0%High
KnowledgeMuse Wonder Full71 vs 57 category score; AA-Omniscience 30.1 vs 4.7High
Long documentsEither66 vs 67 category score; AA-LCR 82.7% vs 83.7%Either
High volume on a budgetNeither flagshipA smaller model is usually the better fit: Cheapest good LLMs, Fastest LLMs–

Key differences

  • DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) and Muse Wonder Full (max) are neck and neck on quality (64.0 vs 70.7, within the ±9.5 margin).
  • DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) is stronger in agents & tools, maths, multimodal.
  • Muse Wonder Full (max) is stronger in coding, composite, knowledge, long context, reasoning.

At a glance

SpecDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017Muse Wonder Full
DeveloperDeepSeekMeta
Released17 Oct 202612 Oct 2026
Context window (tokens)1,048,5761,000,000
Compared atDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max)Muse Wonder Full (max)
Open weightsYesNo
Price in / out / cached input per 1M$0.300 / $1.20 / $0.0060–

Category by category

Category scores on the BenchLeader scale: 50 is the average evaluated model, 15 points is one standard deviation. A gap under one point is called level.

CategoryDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max)Muse Wonder Full (max)Leader
Reasoning70.694.9Muse Wonder Full
Coding70.172.3Muse Wonder Full
Agents & tools63.0–not comparable
Maths61.8–not comparable
Knowledge57.171.4Muse Wonder Full
Multimodal63.7–not comparable
Long context66.467.0level
Composite80.091.9Muse Wonder Full

Where sources disagree

Across the 28 benchmarks both have, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 leads 3, Muse Wonder Full leads 25. Every overall index that rates both puts Muse Wonder Full ahead.

Overall indexDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max)Muse Wonder Full (max)Leader
BenchLeader Index64.070.7neck and neck
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.245.155.8Muse Wonder Full
Vals Index61.366.8Muse Wonder Full

Each publisher runs its own tasks, harnesses and effort settings, so their overall verdicts can differ; BenchLeader reconciles them on one scale. † measured at another effort setting of the same model (the publisher did not test the one compared here).

Price, speed and latency

List prices blended at three input tokens per output token. Per-task prices use the token counts on the methodology page; suite cost is what Artificial Analysis paid to run its whole Intelligence Index.

MeasureDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max)Muse Wonder Full (max)
Blended price per 1M tokens$0.525–
Input / output per 1M$0.300 / $1.20– / –
Cached input per 1M$0.0060–
Price per task: chat reply$0.0005–
Price per task: summarize a 30-page report$0.0043–
Price per task: code edit$0.0036–
Price per task: agentic coding session$0.023–
Price per task: structured extraction$0.0008–
Cost to run a full benchmark suite$0.262–
Output speed198 tok/s–
Time to first answer11.2 s–
Time to a complete answer13.7 s–

Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) scores 64.0 and takes 11 s to its first answer token. Muse Wonder Full (max) scores 70.7. Higher effort means more thinking before the answer: better scores, longer waits and more tokens billed. How reasoning effort changes scores and cost.

Every benchmark

72 benchmarks, grouped by category; each name links to the board and its leaders. † measured at another effort setting of the same model, shown for reference and not counted as a win.

MetricPublisherDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max)Muse Wonder Full (max)
BenchLeader IndexBenchLeader64.070.7
Agents & tools scoreBenchLeader63.0–
Coding scoreBenchLeader70.172.3
Composite scoreBenchLeader80.091.9
Knowledge scoreBenchLeader57.171.4
Long context scoreBenchLeader66.467.0
Maths scoreBenchLeader61.8–
Multimodal scoreBenchLeader63.7–
Reasoning scoreBenchLeader70.694.9
Blended price $/MBenchLeader$0.525–
Output speedBenchLeader198 tok/s–
Time to first answerBenchLeader11.2 s–
Context windowBenchLeader1,048,576 tokens1,000,000 tokens
Reasoning
GPQA DiamondEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub93.2%–
LiveBench 2.0 ReasoningLiveBench89.1%†–
Humanity's Last Exam (AA)Artificial Analysis43.3%53.6%
ARC-AGI-1ARC Prize93.5%–
ARC-AGI-2ARC Prize78.1%–
CritPtArtificial Analysis24.0%32.9%
MysteryMechanismVals AI–35.1%
Chess PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub46.0%–
Mystery Game PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub49.0%–
Coding
Arena WebDevArena (LMArena)16641726
LiveBench 2.0 CodingLiveBench96.0%†–
SciCode (AA)Artificial Analysis55.9%62.6%
IOIVals AI–79.8%
Code MigrationVals AI44.2%61.0%
Code Migration v1.1Vals AI67.5%62.8%
ProgramBenchVals AI–0.5%
SWE-bench MultimodalVals AI–47.3%
Vibe Code Bench 1-100Vals AI–34.0%
Vibe Code Bench v1.1Vals AI87.7%86.0%
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis33.8%57.1%
FrontierCode 1.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis43.7%44.9%
Agents & tools
LiveBench Long AgenticLiveBench50.9%†–
LiveBench BrowserLiveBench76.0%†–
GDPval-AA v2.1Artificial Analysis62.3%67.8%
CyberBenchVals AI–73.6%
Show all 72 benchmarks
MetricPublisherDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max)Muse Wonder Full (max)
Agents & tools
Finance Agent v2Vals AI57.0%59.1%
Finance Agent v2.1Vals AI62.9%67.6%
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1Vals AI14.2%23.3%
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1Vals AI9.2%21.7%
Legal Research BenchVals AI45.2%53.4%
Robo-benchVals AI–10.4%
SREBenchVals AI–11.8%
Tax Agent BenchVals AI44.4%43.0%
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals)Vals AI31.8%58.1%
Terminal-Bench ScienceVals AI–37.1%
AutomationBenchArtificial Analysis66.6%71.3%
GDP.pdf (AA)Artificial Analysis17.2%32.6%
Harvey LAB-AA v1.1Harvey–13.1%
AA-Briefcase v1.1Artificial Analysis15701729
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis12.9%37.1%
CWE-Bench (AA)Artificial Analysis69.2%–
DeepSec-Bench (AA)Artificial Analysis24.9%–
CyberGym end-to-end (AA)Artificial Analysis76.3%–
Maths
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub71.2%–
FrontierMath Tier 4Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub46.3%–
OTIS Mock AIMEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub99.4%–
Knowledge
SimpleQA VerifiedEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub42.5%–
LiveBench 2.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench79.5%†–
LiveBench ResearchLiveBench79.5%†–
AA-OmniscienceArtificial Analysis4.730.1
LegalBenchVals AI–87.4%
BioMysteryBenchVals AI–73.3%
Excel Modeling BenchmarkVals AI61.8%71.9%
Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1Vals AI69.2%75.0%
MedCodeVals AI–49.9%
MedScribeVals AI–89.3%
Public Benefits Bench v1.1Vals AI–73.8%
AA-Omniscience: accuracyArtificial Analysis42.9%43.2%
AA-Omniscience: non-hallucinationArtificial Analysis33.3%77.0%
Multimodal
LiveBench DesignLiveBench83.4%†–
MMMU-ProArtificial Analysis80.6%–
Long context
AA-LCRArtificial Analysis82.7%83.7%
MLCRArtificial Analysis26.7%–
Composite
LiveBench 2.0LiveBench79.2%†–
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2Artificial Analysis45.155.8
Vals IndexVals AI61.366.8
Vals Finance IndexVals AI60.9%64.5%
Vals RSI IndexVals AI–24.4%
Vals Science IndexVals AI–48.5%
Vals Router IndexVals AI61.3%†66.8%†
AA Cyber IndexArtificial Analysis56.8–
Metadata
AA Openness IndexArtificial Analysis44.4–

Data as of 2026-10-24. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.

What changed

  • Muse Wonder Full (max): 1 new result (Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA)).
  • DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max): 10 new results (MLCR, AA Cyber Index, CWE-Bench (AA)…).
  • Muse Wonder Full (max): 9 new results (Code Migration v1.1, Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1, Finance Agent v2.1…).
  • DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max): BenchLeader Index 63.1 → 63.9.
  • DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max): 11 new results (GPQA Diamond, FrontierMath Tiers 1–3, FrontierMath Tier 4…).
  • Muse Wonder Full (max): 1 new result (FrontierCode 1.1 (AA)).
  • Muse Wonder Full (max): BenchLeader Index 68.6 → 70.7.
  • DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max): 1 new result (FrontierCode 1.1 (AA)); 2 score revisions.
  • Muse Wonder Full (max): 1 new result (Arena WebDev); 2 score revisions.
  • Muse Wonder Full (max): 21 new results (IOI, LegalBench, Vals Index…).

Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for coding · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Muse Wonder Full: questions

Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 better than Muse Wonder Full?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) and Muse Wonder Full (max) are neck and neck on quality (64.0 vs 70.7, within the ±9.5 margin). The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; the two are within the margin of error as of 2026-10-24, so check the category scores for your use.
Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 better than Muse Wonder Full for coding?
Muse Wonder Full scores higher in coding (72 vs 70 on the category index, where 50 is average). On Arena WebDev, the top shared coding benchmark, it is 1664 for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 against 1726 for Muse Wonder Full.
Which is better for long documents?
They are level on long-context benchmarks (66 vs 67). Both take about 1M tokens: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 1,048,576, Muse Wonder Full 1,000,000.
Do independent benchmarks agree on DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Muse Wonder Full?
Across the 28 benchmarks both have, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 leads 3, Muse Wonder Full leads 25. Every overall index that rates both puts Muse Wonder Full ahead.
When was DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 released?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 was released on 17 Oct 2026.